Posted on 06/11/2006 9:51:12 PM PDT by Marius3188
THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.
Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.
His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
could evolutionary mechanisms direct toward a pre-determined end without a design operating?
Um, he was talking about the posting history of the person in question, I believe.
Chill out; your paranoia is creeping up on you again.
We read that stuff all the time.
He'd have to dump a lot of science to be a YEC. So, I'll go with assuming he's not one.
However, here's another example:
Another member of the audience wanted to know why Minsky and Dennett attacked religion so passionately although the father of sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, described faith as one of the greatest of humanity’s ideas. Daniel Dennett argued patiently with the young man that one could compare religion to the craving for sweets. This impulse to consume anything sweet quickly and in the greatest possible amounts played an important role in the early evolutionary stages of humanity, when saving energy was important. Because today one must ordinarily no longer survive a long winter on the steppes, however, the compulsion to consume sugar injures him more than it helps. The same is true with religion, whose greatest service over the centuries has been to deliver explanations for the inexplicable. But this function has survived too long. Today it does much more to prevent humanity from gaining knowledge.
The leading thinkers of the Third Culture argue only seldom in such a popular forum, but it is precisely in this way that one can assess the pragmatic aspect of their declaration of war. For them it does not concern only the honor of holding intellectual sovereignty over interpretation. At the beginning of the 21st century the sciences stand on the brink of enormous progress. The human genome has been decoded, technology has reached the nano-scale, and it is possible to research human and artificial intelligence. In view of these new possibilities, science sees dogmatic ethics and the moral burdens of history as obstacles on the road to progress. Not to mention the science policy of the American president, who must take consideration of those who elected him and who continue to take creationism at face value.
If you are omniscient, you can see the outcome of the current conditions, plus all the possible outcomes of all the possible conditions. If you are omnipotent in addition to omniscient, you have the power to arrange those conditions such that any desired end is an inevitable result - no mid-stream tinkering required. You might call the initial arrangement of conditions in such a case "design", in a sense, but I do not know how you would make such a determination except by faith.
Information to you or me may mean something but to Information Theory the meaning (or the message) is irrelevant.
The use of the term information with regards to the genome is not a reference to a *message* as you believe (as indicated by the context of your message) but is an abstraction designed to improve our comprehension of the chemical interactions.
"How often does information randomly collide into sequences that mean something?
The genome is not the result of random collisions, it results from the natural arrangement of molecules, specifically amino acids, sugars and a number of other 'organic molecules, that are so easily produced they have been found floating in space. The 'message' is nothing more than a sequence of chemical reactions based on the tendency for some atoms to attract certain atoms but reject others, coupled with the energy necessary for combinations to form.
Comparing the genome to a language or a computer code may be a handy way of visualizing associated processes but it is no more than an abstraction.
Your concept of 'information' also requires the 'intent' to convey a message. This is simply not what happens during ontogeny. One part of the genome does not 'intend' to send a message to another part but will, given the existence of a specific chemical, produce a different chemical which in turn will trigger another chemical reaction if and when it reaches some other sequence of nucleotides. The entire system is regulated by chemical feedback systems. Feedback systems are quite common in nature and do occur frequently in complex systems that we would view as chaotic (or close to it).
There is no need for messages, intent, or a coder; naturally occurring complex systems of chemicals which include feedback control systems are all that is necessary.
Are you suggesting that biological mutation rates cannot be measured by science?
What about radioactive decay rates? Those cannot exist without using probability theory.
Are you suggesting that science is incapable of performing mathematical studies of probability for any and all aspects of evolution, micro or macro? Does this not seem preposterous to you?
Lack of desire to perform such analysis's does not imply they are impossible to calculate.
We do it on a very small scale in the lab, when we mess around with the genetics of bacteria, fruit flies, etc. But there are so many variables that it's difficult to do more than minor modifications. I wouldn't know how to start with simple forms of life and deliberately end up with us. Perhaps a deity could do it. I don't know. No one knows.
When we use genetic algorithms to design things like electronic circuits, all we do is start the process and let things take their course. The results are sometimes surprisingly useful.
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation. Long, but very interesting.
Specific examples of Genetic Algorithms.
Getting his address is one thing, getting inside for pictures and an interview is another.
I understand your objection; I prefer not to be overly blunt in my responses as well, but these two posters have a bit of a history. There are times when bluntness is appropriate.
It would be nice to avoid rudeness in the discourse but I'm afraid that with the variety of personalities here we should expect a few conflicts.
You're wrong.
> Is God an absentee landlord or is/was He carefully tending to His creation during the arrow of real time?
"Theistic evolution," at least as commonly used, includes "Deistic" as a subset, as both posit a god starting the process in motion. As to whether Collins believes that God tinkered now and again... not being a telepath, I can't say. However, Collins does seem to agree that natural selection does the job:
"He maintains that the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming..." (from post 52).
> For atheists this not an important question. But for many believers it is important.
Suggestion: look up the Toba supervolcanic explosion from about 70,000 years ago, and what it did to the human species. If someone wanted to relate religion to natural events, and was willing to understand that Genesis was somewhat allegorical... some interesting conclusions can be drawn.
Hint: "the soul" is a concept straight out of religion that science has nothing much to say about as yet. So ideas about gods messing about with souls are the sort of things that fall square into the realm of theology, but not science, and can be neither confirmed nor denied (at this time).
I see you're too scared to point them out.
> I'm guessing that it's because our population is now so large, spread out, and mobile that -- in the absence of a near extinction that would reduce our numbers to a very small group -- it would be difficult for some new mutations to become everyone's standard genetic inheritance.
I'd guess pretty much the opposite: humans are at the end of evolution because we have developed technologically far enough that genetic traits we have but don't want, now won't kill us; and genetic traits we want but don't have, we can aquire.
"What, you mean like chaotic water vapor coming together to form coherant and complex snowflakes? Fairly often, especialyl in winter in the Midwest. Somewhat less common in southern California."
Water vapor is not information.
DNA is a much different story.
Nothing (in the natural world) stays the same.
We had a drought for so long, don't know if that contributed to it or not.
Top Spot on the neck, heartworm and flea pills, Vet flea spray, Sevan dust outside, flea shampoo - and they are still around! Hate putting all of that stuff on him!
Cute dog, Pomeranian?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.